Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 9 January 11 >

January 10[edit]

Category:Free software licenses[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Free software licenses to Category:Free and open-source software licenses
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are two POV-laden names which substantially refer to the same set of licenses. It makes sense to put the licenses in one place, with a title which accurately accommodates them all. I've already created categories for the most important and legitimate subclassifications: Category:FSF-approved software licenses and Category:OSI-approved software licenses. Pnm (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the general disagreement of whether "open source" should be hyphenated here (long story short: we've wildly inconsistent either way and despite strong advocacy from some of Wikipedia's MoS watchers real-world use is equally inconsistent), would "FOSS licenses" be a better compromise title? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't feel strongly about the hyphen. I'm ambivalent about the acronym. While I can see "FOSS" being preferable to Wikipedia's convention ("Free") in related subcategories, I'm inclined to spell it out for consistency. – Pnm (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge There's a reason for the distinction between 'free' and 'open-source'; see free software, free software definition, open-source software. Here's just one of the many distinctions: "free" means you can change it, re-publish it, and even sell it; while "open-source" only means you can see the source code and (maybe) change it for your own use. Why not just make both cats part of Category:Free and open-source software licenses? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that distinction. "FSF-approved" and "OSI-approved" make that distinction while avoiding the neutrality problem, which is why I created Category:FSF-approved software licenses and Category:OSI-approved software licenses. As I alluded to above, free software and open source software have POV-laden definitions. The Free Software Definition is capitalized for a reason – it's one definition, admittedly a very important one. The Debian Free Software Guidelines constitute another. Some licenses which are open source in the common sense (they include the source code) don't meet the criteria of the Open Source Definition. We should avoid adopting the Free Software Definition as if it's a neutral, universal definition of free software, or the Open Source Definition as a neutral, universal definition of open source software. That's the point of this merge. – Pnm (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that we should never adopt anything as opinionated as Richard Stallman's concept of free software. He's a radical, while Eric Raymond presents a more mainstream view. Still, does that affect categorization? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, to categorize licenses requires using a definition. – Pnm (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. Even though "open source" is by design a superset of "free software", both terms are inherently political and that's what led to the construction of the amalgamated term in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Open source" is not necessarily free, and freeware is not necessarily open source. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since Uncle Ed created the category that was to be the merge target, we'll have an even bigger mess if the merge isn't completed, with a three-layer hierarchy for these 75 articles. In this contentious topic area, the name "Open source license" implies that Wikipedia has a definition of open source license and does our own analysis, while "OSI-approved software license" indicates that we're using OSI's definition and analysis. Same for "Free software license" and "FSF-approved software license." The newly created parent category "Free and open-source software licenses" (subject to rename) should contain all such licenses, and the OSI-approved and FSF-approved grandchild categories should be kept, but the implicit-POV-based middle layer "Open source licenses" and "Free software licenses" should be eliminated. Though he hasn't said so directly, I think Chris Cunningham supports this merge. He and I have made sound arguments in response to the "oppose" reasons given, but that may not be apparent to someone who is not familiar with the topic. If this is closed with no consensus I'll go about triple-listing the articles in the three layers and then propose a clearer merge from the child categories to the grandchild categories. – Pnm (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lunar images[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lunar images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. After moving related free images to commons this category is limited to featured/featured & demoted or unfree images. Bulwersator (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this doesn't seem a good rationale for deletion. Occuli (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are still images to be categorized, so there's no reason to delete it. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it still appears to serve a useful purpose. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Honorverse templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
propose merging Category:Honorverse templates to Category:Honorverse. Unneeded sub-categorisation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it's standard practice to group templates, when there are multiple ones, in a subcategory to avoid clutter and allow for easy access. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Honorverse locations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Environmental Disaster Ghost Towns[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename C2A. The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
propose renaming Category:Environmental Disaster Ghost Towns to Category:Environmental disaster ghost towns. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disability disorders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Taking a peek around, I can't see any clearly-defined medical criteria for what constitutes a "disability disorder" in this category. Consequently, it appears to be an arbitrary catch-all that constitutes original research. Please correct me if I'm wrong and this is a technical term with some defined criteria. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not original research, and a reasonably concise generic term used in the medical and legal professions. --Mirokado (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: Mirokado (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified Disability and Medicine WPs since hardly anybody is likely to be watching that cat page, input from the Medicine WP in particular would be helpful given the nominator's concerns. --Mirokado (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've used it for research in the past and am likely to use it in future (I've arrived from the note on the Disability Project) Failedwizard (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not a recognized medical term. It is also not a useful way to categorize diseases. A vast number of medical and psychiatric disorders cause some sort of disability. How would you decide what goes in to this category? By searching Google, the links Mirokado mention are amongst the top - and if you look at those pages, the term "disability disorder" isn't even really used. (ICD does not even mention the word disability besides in the title - seems like a ploy to get search engine traffic. GOLD uses the two word phrase just once, in the context "X-linked intellectual disability disorders" - of which there are probably hundreds (some already categorized in Category:X-linked dominant disorders and Category:X-linked recessive disorders). The law firm uses the phrase "Social Security disability disorders" in the context of reasons to fight social security to get money.) None of these websites actually has a definition of "disability disorders" because a definition does not exist. And I'm not sure how Failedwizard has used this for research...the category has only existed for a few days. --Scott Alter (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As Scott says, this is not a recognised medical term, nor is it useful. Diseases/disorders/conditions (call them what you will) are more then adequately categorised here on enWP. Also note that the same disability in different people may have quite different causes (e.g. paraplegia may be due to spina bifida or due to an injury). Also, in a single person there may be multiple causes of a disability (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis and congestive heart failure may both contribute to an inability to walk for more than 50 metres).

    The definition in the category is very nebulous. I don't know what "substantial causes of disability" means. Does it mean that most disabilities are caused by the causes classified here (not true) or does it mean that these causes usually cause disability or does it mean that disability is part of the definition of these causes?

    I note that all the current contents of the category are non-reversible causes of disability. Stopping a harmful behaviour (e.g. nicotine consumption) or adjusting medication (e.g. thyroid replacement) or even getting a good night's sleep will not resolve these conditions. Because disability is a universal human experience (we all experience degrees of disability from time to time) the focus of disability work is on the impact a particular disability is having. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this is not a recognized term. I can list several things that one person will say "yes" and someone else will say "no" to including. Categories need to be such that we can clearly say if things belong or not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no definition that would weed out subjectivity would leave a collection of articles useful for any user nor would they have much in common. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Welsh military personnel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Welsh military personnel and Category:Welsh airmen. The military personnel by nation is supposed to be subdivided by military role or branch of the military served in. It is not supposed to be sub-divided by region in was that have no military meaning. The Welsh airmen says it includes people in any military, which is not how these military personnel categories are supposed to work. The Welsh military personnel is not doing what it claims since it includes one person in a regiment while excluding others who were in the same regiment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Wales doesn't actually have its own military. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's interesting to categorize military personnel by where they came from. For example, many Canadians served in Vietnam; we could have Category:Canadian Vietnam War veterans. Also, in WWI and WWII, some people went overseas to fight the Nazis, enlisting in foreign armies because their nation hadn't declared war yet. If a Canadian enlisted in the English army, would he be in Category:English military personnel or Category:Canadian military personnel? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sort of quandary is precisely why we avoid categorising people by mere regional association. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Au contraire, that's precisely why article can be in more than one category! --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Since 1707, there have only been British military personnel, because there is a British army, and no English, Scottish or Welsh armies. On the other hand, each regiment has (or had) an area where it recruited, so that there are Scottish regiments and Welsh regiments. We either need to define these categories according to the person's extraction or their regiment's base. Accordingly the accurate name would either be Category:Soldiers in Welsh regiments or Category:Military personnel of Welsh extraction. There will be further complications when we add in Irish. In the 18th century, rather than disband British regiments after a war, they were placed on the Irish establishment (so that they were paid for by Irish taxes, not British) and in WWII many Irishmen enlisted in the British army. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm astonished this is even being nominated. We have a large Category:Irish military personnel tree, of which only a tiny % are Category:Irish Army personnel, likewise Category:Scottish military personnel. Wales is certainly a nation. If you don't like it in the "... by nation" head cat, take it out, but it should be a sub of the British category. Equally Category:Soldiers in Welsh regiments could be set up, but is by no means the same as this. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By no means exhaustive, those shown on List of Welsh people#Military men and women are examples of entries that should be on this category. Used correctly, this category will be very useful. Daicaregos (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of these arguments sound like the classic falacy "other stuff exists". Just because there are other cases where people are not being classified by the army they served in, does not mean we should perpetuate this problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I would agree with your assertion that these categories should not be sub-divided by "region", but I feel the four constituent nations of the UK are special cases. Because within the UK they are considered nations in their own right, I feel this category is appropriate. It should be noted that though the UK has one collective armed forces, the army has individual units composed of troops from each nation, such as the The Royal Welsh. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Categories named after Presidents of the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge and delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Categories named after Presidents of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It is unclear why this intersection is preferable to the relatively little-populated Category:Presidents of the United States. Fifty categories are not an overwhelming number, especially when they are all directly relevant.
On separate note, there seems to be something unusual with the "Category:Categories named..." grouping. Category:Eponymous categories claims to be solely a Wikipedia administration category but this is clearly not true if its sub-cats are taking categories out of the non-admin tree, as in the Presidents case, Category:John Lennon, Category:John F. Kennedy and presumably many others. These "categories named" categories should either be marked as non-admin (i.e. for readers) cats or the categories they contain should be included in the main category trees. SFB 03:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete based on this nomination This is part of of entire category tree starting at Category:Eponymous categories. One subcat should not be picked out for deletion. The entire structure and its rationale and what these categories are supposed to be subcatted into need examination by all involved/interested parties. Hmains (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this specific one warrants deletion on its own grounds, regardless of the status of the eponymous category tree. Why not nominate the main category for discussion separately? I for one believe they should be moved to the talk space at the very least. SFB 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Defunct occupations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Defunct occupations to Category:Obsolete occupations
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I feel that the term "obsolete occupations" sounds more efficient than the term "defunct occupations." GVnayR (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to obsolete. Since occupations are not organized, they do not become defunct. Craft guilds, labor unions, professional associations and the like can become defunct, but not occupations themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. However, I would question whetrher all of them are defunct/obsolete. For example the Elizabeth II still has ladies-in-waiting. I would also question whehter we should be having a present/former distinction like this, this being something normally distained in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment people are free to remove articles from the category if they can find sources that show they do not belong (and actually generally if the article itself has no sources showing it does belong). I would support a delete of both these categories as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this reminds me of the twilight zone episode where Burgess Meredith, a librarian, is declared obsolete.... ah, how Wikipedia imitates television... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Discontinued operating systems[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Reverse merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Discontinued operating systems to Category:Obsolete operating systems
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I am making a better category for obsolete operating systems that will hopefully cover them all. GVnayR (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Please stop moving operating systems from the well-established category "Discontinued operating systems" to your new category "Obsolete operating systems"!
If an operating system is obsolete does not depend on the manufacturer, but on its users. For as long as there are still users or applications, an operating system is never obsolete, although it may have been discontinued by its developers for a long time. In some cases, commercially discontinued operating systems are still maintained or improved by others. The fact that you personally do not seem to use some particular operating systems (those you moved into the obsolete category like MP/M, CP/M, PC DOS, FlexOS or MS-DOS) does not mean, that other people don't continue to use these systems. For example, IBM PC DOS is still commercially available for OEM customers from IBM, and IBM also continues to commercially maintain FlexOS, an original Digital Research operating system. MP/M and CP/M have been released as freeware (with source code, where available) by Lineo some years back and there are enthusiasts who continue to support and maintain these systems. There are still CP/M machines in home and even in heavy-duty industrial use, and new CP/M programs are written occasionally.
I think, the whole idea of introducing a category named "obsolete" is misguided, because there is nobody who could neutrally decide, if an operating system is actually obsolete or not.--Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge as discontinued and obsolete don't mean the same thing. Discontinued simply means it's not made anymore and includes (for example) Mac OS 10.5 and Windows Vista. Obsolete implies that there is no longer any computers or software that are compatible, which does not include those versions of MacOS and Windows. I don't mind having an obsolete category, placed within the discontinued category, as long as we can define it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Obsolete" is the operative term here with a pretty commonly accepted meaning. Every third-decimal-place build gets discontinued, but the important idea is that the operating system is no longer a commercially viable or usable product for new installations. There's lots of Studebakers around, but you can't rent one at the airport...they are obsolete passenger cars. You can read by a whale oil lamp, and you certainly can be killed by an antique arqebus - but they are obsolete in terms of irrelevance to current practice. It doesn't matter if some enthusiast is preserving the last Binford 6100 mainframe in his basement so that Binford OS version 7.1 from 1968 still "runs" - it's obsolete. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Studebakers are not obsolete, because you can still use them on today's roads and you can still buy gas/petrol to run them. Whale oil lamps truly are obsolete as you can't buy whale oil anymore. That's the difference. Obsolete means you can no longer practically use something since you can no longer buy necessary accessories or supplies. In software that means that no one is currently developing compatible programs. Thus, Binford 6100 is obsolete, Windows XP is not, even though both are discontinued. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A lot of people say that Myspace is obsolete. Even though nobody uses the site anymore, people can still access it through a modern computer. Maybe people jump the gun sometimes when they declare something to be obsolete. GVnayR (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's true that common usage doesn't distinguish between obsolescence and "just not the most up-to-date thing", as an encyclopedia Wikipedia does need to maintain the distinction. Myspace has certainly lost its cachet as a social networking venue, but it's still very much in use as, for example, a place for bands to post free streaming samples of their music and concert listings and the like — it's not "obsolete", as such, but just a site whose actual function has changed from what it used to be. Similarly, BeOS or old versions of MacOS may not be the most up-to-date options, but they still do have userbases and appropriate hardware can still be acquired for them and there may still be functions for which they're actually more useful than a more contemporary OS — so they're not "obsolete", they're just products that have retained a functional niche despite having been technologically supplanted by newer equivalents. Do not merge. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per WP:NOR. Discontinued we can determine, and there's an entire tree of Category:Discontinued software. – Pnm (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was ill-advised. "Obsolete" is a judgement call rather than a definitive characterisation. The correct call here is simply to delete the new category and undo the nominator's recategorisation of exaisting articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Association football clubs by county[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Association football clubs by county (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Categorization of football clubs by county may be useful for England, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but the same cannot be said for most of the rest of the world (in fact, most countries seem to not use "county" as an administrative subdivision). Therefore, there is no need for a container category of football clubs by country and county, or for any other combination of county and administrative subdivision—district, province, region, state, and so on. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as outside of England, counties are quite small and much less significant. In the United States, for example, counties are subdivisions of states, in some states they have almost no governing power, and some have as little as 50 residents. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that counties aren't the relevant units of organization in most countries doesn't really impact on whether this should exist or not; country-specific subcategories already only exist for the three countries Black Falcon named as being the ones where it is useful, and not for any other. Similarly, Canadian categories very often should be subdivided by province rather than having a single Canada-wide category whenever possible, ditto Australian states, and sheer size dictates that American ones almost always have to be subdivided by state rather than having a single US-wide category — so it's far from true that no combination of country and administrative subdivision should ever exist. That said, it is true that we don't particularly need a parent that allows an international listing of "teams subdivided by administrative subdivision", because the administrative subdivision is a unit of convenience for managing the country category and not a unit of the teams' notability per se — a "teams by county in England", "teams by county in Ireland" or "teams by province in Canada" category certainly needs to be parented by its own country's national category, but we don't really need an international parent that crosslinks them to each other. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last sentence said it better than my nomination statement, and to further support your point, I want to note that we do currently subdivide American clubs by state, Australian clubs by state or territory, Canadian clubs by province or territory and German clubs by state, to give a few examples, but do not group these categories by the name of the subdivision – e.g., Category:Association football clubs by state and Category:Association football clubs by province are red links. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough! Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Move category to Category:Association football clubs by regional subdivision. We North Americans want to have our footie teams as well known as those of the Mother Country. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this category affect whether or not that happens? Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is fallacious to assume this is invalid simply because it only applies to British clubs (or more specifically, Scottish and English clubs). County football is indeed an important aspect in the UK; there are many important county cup competitions (historically, at non-league level, or even at present in some derby cases such as the Renfrewshire Cup). It is certainly arguable that county categorisation is not important in general, but in the specific case of Scotland and England the addition of notable tournaments at county level makes them more prominent. Renaming could work, but I'm not sure it would actually help any. Upon actually reading the nom, I'm mostly in agreement, save for the countries chosen. See my clarification downthread. Splitting and renaming seems sensible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "County" is an administrative (or regional) subdivision of a country, but the names of the various levels of subdivisions vary by country. In the US, it's 50 states, each consisting of smaller counties. In Ireland, County Cork is world famous. Let's use the top subdivision rather than pedantically sticking with "county". I've already added German, Australian, Canadian, and US clubs to the proposed category; I left it as a red link so we can "move" to it more easily, if so desired. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see this as a productive move. Categorising Scottish and English clubs by county makes sense because there are county football organisations in those countries and notable tournaments run at a county level. If such aspects do not exist in other countries then this is indeed trivial overcategorisation. To be quite honest I thought that your comment regarding US teams was intended to be humourous, as with a franchise system teams are tied to their local regions by nothing more than the physical locations of their stadia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for detecting the <grin>, but along with it I am quite serious. Think of the reader, looking for a football team somewhere he lives, is planning to visit; or was just wondering of "those people" had ever heard of this glorious sport? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that's a strong enough rationale for general categorisation by sub-region, especially as the definition of "sub-region" varies collosally across the world. I think there's a specific exception for Scottish and English teams, but otherwise I agree with the sentiments behind the nomination (other than the specific countries, as to my knowledge there aren't county football bodies in NI / ROI). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Category:British and Irish football clubs by county. At present they deals with the sole content. I note that other countries have eben removed but Category:Association football clubs by national subdivision would cover German lander, French departments, US States, etc. etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What's unclear is why we need Category:Association football clubs by national subdivision in the first place. At the country level, there's already an international parent; why do we even need a separate parent that directly contains British counties and German lander and US states and Canadian provinces right alongside each other? By-national-subdivision is a classification of geographic convenience to increase the manageability of the country-level categories; it's not a relevant or notable comparison across national boundaries. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have notified WikiProject Football of this discussion (diff). -- Black Falcon (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the point of this category - its subcategories should be subcategories under the national association football club categories, but there is no need to have a supranational one. Personally I think Category:English football clubs by county‎ is also pointless and should be deleted as we have Category:Sport in England by county. Number 57 09:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Climate-cooling aerosols[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted at creator's request (CSD G7) by Fastily (talk · contribs). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Climate-cooling aerosols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete There are two issues here. The first is that saying that stratospheric sulfur aerosols cool the climate is a big simplification. The second and perhaps more problematic issue is that I'm not sure that this category has any potential for growth. As far as I know stratospheric sulfur aerosols are the only aerosols known with certainty to have a significant effect on global dimming. Pichpich (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century American criminals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:20th-century American criminals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not necessary even as a 'container category' - there are no other alike categories for other countries. (An upmerge does not seem necessary, as pages linked to this cat are already linked to subcats of Category:American criminals and both Category:20th-century criminals and Category:20th-century American people are or should be container categories.) Mayumashu (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- we did a major cull on 20th century categories not long ago, as being a surrogaste for "present" and "former" categories, which WP does not like. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is an entire category tree named Category:20th century as there are for the other centuries. Same with Category:20th-century people. And the reason for an American category must be that there are so many articles on American 20th century criminals, it makes no sense to have them overwhelm their parent categories. Hmains (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no reason to have a single nation with its own by century, by relationship with the law break out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_10&oldid=1138396384"